Go to page

[H]F Junkie

I don't need to listen to Jim drone on when I can look at the thread and see the evidence presented and call out that it does not appear to be happening across the board. You'd know this if you took the time to do real research instead of blindly believing something.

What does "not across the board" change? If only 8 out of 10 people are killed it is not murder?

No manufacturer would completely remove freesync branding unless they had some deal going on that benefited them if they did that.
Everyone would prominently show both otherwise, which is the only sane thing to do.
But I guess fanboy-ism prevails over reason yet again.

[H]F Junkie

What does "not across the board" change? If only 8 out of 10 people are killed it is not murder?

No manufacturer would completely remove freesync branding unless they had some deal going on that benefited them if they did that.
Everyone would prominently show both otherwise, which is the only sane thing to do.
But I guess fanboy-ism prevails over reason yet again.

Yep, I bought an MSI 27 inch 1080P 144hz FREESYNC monitor in November of 2018 and a 27 inch 1440p 144hz FREESYNC monitor in July of 2019. Had they not been marked with Freesync Technology, I would not have bought them. The worst thing is, I can see them not only removing the Freesync branding from the monitor and box but also within the monitor itself.

No, you choose not to listen to him because he is not supporting this clearly anti competitive move by Nvidia. Dude, he physically showed you the evidence, that the Freesync Technology branding was completely removed and Nvidia G Sync was placed there instead. Not really difficult, unless you refuse to believe what your own eyes are telling you.

Fully [H]

What does "not across the board" change? If only 8 out of 10 people are killed it is not murder?

No manufacturer would completely remove freesync branding unless they had some deal going on that benefited them if they did that.
Everyone would prominently show both otherwise, which is the only sane thing to do.
But I guess fanboy-ism prevails over reason yet again.

Not being across the board calls into question Jim's clickbait-y as hell title and the assumption people seem to be making that its tied to the G-Sync Compatible labeling. Beyond that, I question exactly what purpose does it serve Nvidia if these monitors still list Freesync in their specs and will show up under Freesync capable in searches on placed like Newegg. Not to mention some of the ones that presumably have removed the Freesync branding still have Freesync support listed in etail product page titles. Presumably, they're also still listed on AMD's Freesync page as well. Seems like a weird half-step to say "you can't use the Freesync label, but you can totally list support in every other way" from Nvidia, who is generally a hell of a lot more aggressive when they pull shit.

Fully [H]

I never said that anything he is saying is false, but I don't have to watch the video that he is using a bunch of disparate articles and data he gathered himself to support the conclusion he already came to before he even set out on making this video. He uses a lot of real sources that do not support his conclusion in order to make his argument sound legitimate. Correlation does not imply causation. The hate that people throw at NVIDIA is always based on nothing but emotion. If Jim or anyone has actual hard evidence that NVIDIA is strong arming monitor manufacturers like the GPP, then it would be something to get the pitchforks out for. Still, simply changing branding, something that happens all the time, is not the hill to die on.

[H]ard|Gawd

Joined

Nov 29, 2004

Messages

1,766

Problem with Adored, beyond being a hyper-amd-fanboi where his preached theories have turned out false (see Ryzen 3xxx videos), is that he takes 30 minutes to say something that could be said in 3 minutes.

So the gist I get so far from the posts here is that nVidia is forcing manufacturers to remove freesync (branding?) from monitors.

Why would any manufacturer remove freesync? I clicked on the first linked monitor, the ASUS, and the first sync tech it talks about is Freesync.

"Oh, the Freesync is only allowed in text" ... so in the specs? So I am supposed to believe that monitor manufacturers are going to remove Freesync from the packaging?

If that was what nVidia was asking them to do, I would agree that's out there. Just list all three sync techs "G-Sync compatible, Freesync (1), VESA Adaptive sync" etc. And it should be right on the box.

Except those monitors where very specifically and clearly Freesync monitors, straight up! If they want to pay for such exclusivity, have them build new monitors. As such, it is clearly anti competitive and the only question now, is it cosmetic or did they also change and remove Freesync from those monitors completely?

[H]ard|Gawd

Except those monitors where very specifically and clearly Freesync monitors, straight up! If they want to pay for such exclusivity, have them build new monitors. As such, it is clearly anti competitive and the only question now, is it cosmetic or did they also change and remove Freesync from those monitors completely?

Because they were very specifically Freesync Technology monitors. Otherwise, it is a clearly anti competitive move, by unsurprisingly, by Nvidia. No emotion there, just simple, obvious facts as they are. If they want to have their branding on monitors, they need to have their own monitors or just have it added as another tech, not replacing what already clearly existed. This is simply GPP for monitors with the same Nvidia folks claiming the same arguments.

Straight up, this hurts PC gaming as a whole so do not come crying to me when things are not as good as they could be.

[H]F Junkie

Joined

Oct 4, 2007

Messages

11,864

Welp, I went to the Amazon website and clearly, it does not mention Freesync, at all. However, on the Acer Website, it says very specifically, Freesync and no mention of G Sync. So, is it that Amazon is jumping the gun or that Acer has not yet caught up? Otherwise, someone is clearly screwing up between those two companies.

Fully [H]

Except those monitors where very specifically and clearly Freesync monitors, straight up! If they want to pay for such exclusivity, have them build new monitors. As such, it is clearly anti competitive and the only question now, is it cosmetic or did they also change and remove Freesync from those monitors completely?

The monitor has to directly support and enable Freesync in order to use it, same with G Sync. If you remove the ability on the monitor, it simply will not work. However, I reported above that Amazon says one thing, literally but, the Acer website says something completely different. Now, the question is, why and for what very specific reason.

Fully [H]

The monitor has to directly support and enable Freesync in order to use it, same with G Sync. If you remove the ability on the monitor, it simply will not work. However, I reported above that Amazon says one thing, literally but, the Acer website says something completely different. Now, the question is, why and for what very specific reason.

Incorrect. If it supports Adaptive Sync, Freesync and G-Sync Compatible can be enabled. AMD and Nvidia testing guarantees full compatibility and support, but neither are required to access adaptive sync support in either companies' drivers. If you're really concerned about it, check AMD's list of Freesync supported monitors. If it officially supports Freesync it will be on there.

I'd probably point to Acer not updating their site. For the XZ321Q linked earlier in the thread, the Amazon title and description lists both Freesync and G-Sync Compatible brands while the website just says "Adaptive Sync". All sorts of weirdness going on.

[H]F Junkie

Not being across the board calls into question Jim's clickbait-y as hell title and the assumption people seem to be making that its tied to the G-Sync Compatible labeling. Beyond that, I question exactly what purpose does it serve Nvidia if these monitors still list Freesync in their specs and will show up under Freesync capable in searches on placed like Newegg. Not to mention some of the ones that presumably have removed the Freesync branding still have Freesync support listed in etail product page titles. Presumably, they're also still listed on AMD's Freesync page as well. Seems like a weird half-step to say "you can't use the Freesync label, but you can totally list support in every other way" from Nvidia, who is generally a hell of a lot more aggressive when they pull shit.

[H]F Junkie

When it comes to labeling compatibility on a product, the manufacturer's best interest is to show that the product is compatible with both g-sync, and freesync if they want to shift the maximum number of units.
If they remove one, they are basically cutting into their own revenue stream, so someone must have offered them something to make it worth their while. Or the marketing people at all these mfgs are complete imbeciles.

Which is the more likely scenario?

A: They made a deal to prefer G-Sync over Freesync on product packaging and promotional materials.
B: They deliberately want to cut into their own revenue stream for no reason whatsoever

The difference from coca cola vs pepsi branding is that the venue has nothing to loose on removing one brand, except maybe the complete fanboys who refuse to go to a venue that is sponsored by pepsi.

[H]ard|Gawd

I'd probably point to Acer not updating their site. For the XZ321Q linked earlier in the thread, the Amazon title and description lists both Freesync and G-Sync Compatible brands while the website just says "Adaptive Sync". All sorts of weirdness going on.

Stuff on Amazon, product specs are incorrect all the time. Mostly from 3rd party sellers, but even when it's shipped and sold by Amazon. Weirdness there is proof of nothing.

Let's assume there is something to this rumor, and that nVidia wants G-Sync marketing to not be listed side-by-side with Freesync (still seen no evidence to this, and no I haven't watched the video and don't plan to).

All that the manufacturer has to do is make another SKU or Model number. It can be the exact same manufactured item, just a slightly different model number (HD1000G, HD1000F made up examples). This would be very low cost to none to accomplish, and if they are getting paid by nVidia for separate marketing, good for them.

Marketing is Marketing. Pretty sure nVidia pays manufacturers to place their logos/branding on the products. If they are paying to help advertise/sell something (someone elses' product), they are not going to want to also support their competitor. Nothing new, and not nearly as nefarious as it's been spun.

I can assure you that Freesync isn't going anywhere, nor are Freesync branded displays.

[H]F Junkie

Stuff on Amazon, product specs are incorrect all the time. Mostly from 3rd party sellers, but even when it's shipped and sold by Amazon. Weirdness there is proof of nothing.

Let's assume there is something to this rumor, and that nVidia wants G-Sync marketing to not be listed side-by-side with Freesync (still seen no evidence to this, and no I haven't watched the video and don't plan to).

All that the manufacturer has to do is make another SKU or Model number. It can be the exact same manufactured item, just a slightly different model number (HD1000G, HD1000F made up examples). This would be very low cost to none to accomplish, and if they are getting paid by nVidia for separate marketing, good for them.

Marketing is Marketing. Pretty sure nVidia pays manufacturers to place their logos/branding on the products. If they are paying to help advertise/sell something (someone elses' product), they are not going to want to also support their competitor. Nothing new, and not nearly as nefarious as it's been spun.

I can assure you that Freesync isn't going anywhere, nor are Freesync branded displays.

Then they need to produce a wholly separate product to sell the G Sync only branding on, not take over an already established product that has their competitors branding and technology on it and in it. This is exactly the same as GPP, where they tried to push their own branding on already established video cards products and attempted to force the competitor to create a new, unknown one to sell theirs on.

That is as anti competitive as they come. Shame that Nv's products cannot stand on their own, without these shenanigans.

[H]ard|Gawd

When it comes to labeling compatibility on a product, the manufacturer's best interest is to show that the product is compatible with both g-sync, and freesync if they want to shift the maximum number of units.
If they remove one, they are basically cutting into their own revenue stream, so someone must have offered them something to make it worth their while. Or the marketing people at all these mfgs are complete imbeciles.

Which is the more likely scenario?

A: They made a deal to prefer G-Sync over Freesync on product packaging and promotional materials.
B: They deliberately want to cut into their own revenue stream for no reason whatsoever

The difference from coca cola vs pepsi branding is that the venue has nothing to loose on removing one brand, except maybe the complete fanboys who refuse to go to a venue that is sponsored by pepsi.

The answer is A, and I don't know why you cut my comment short if you were just going to pose the exact same scenario to me that I stated in that same comment. Considering that Nvidia released G-Sync first and developed a proprietary technology it doesn't surprise me that they are attempting to defend that space through branding, as that seems like a logical business move. If both technologies are still present and the technical specs detail what the monitor is capable of then it's really just a branding deal between the manufacturers and Nvidia; I don't see why the manufacturers shouldn't be allowed to decide the branding on their own products.

[H]ard|Gawd

Then they need to produce a wholly separate product to sell the G Sync only branding on, not take over an already established product that has their competitors branding and technology on it and in it.

Haven't seen evidence that anything is being "taken over". And yes, it would just be some simple steps to be able to sell both. Different model number is technically different product, but can actually be the same device. If a manufacturer is too lazy and just says "ok, we will adjust the packaging", that's on them.

This is exactly the same as GPP, where they tried to push their own branding on already established video cards products and attempted to force the competitor to create a new, unknown one to sell theirs on.

It is exactly the same as GPP, and for the same reasons as I mentioned previously. nVidia doesn't want to pay for advertising that helps sell competitors products. Not new in business or surprising. You think AMD is going to give advertising money (to ASUS, LG, et. al) to help sell G-Sync monitors? Then why do you expect the reverse?

[H]F Junkie

Haven't seen evidence that anything is being "taken over". And yes, it would just be some simple steps to be able to sell both. Different model number is technically different product, but can actually be the same device. If a manufacturer is too lazy and just says "ok, we will adjust the packaging", that's on them.

It is exactly the same as GPP, and for the same reasons as I mentioned previously. nVidia doesn't want to pay for advertising that helps sell competitors products. Not new in business or surprising. You think AMD is going to give advertising money (to ASUS, LG, et. al) to help sell G-Sync monitors? Then why do you expect the reverse?

Nvidia wasn't paying jack for those already established brands, they were already established without anything to do with Nvidia. I see you are one of those who could not see beyond your bias to understand that, however. Oh well, does not change what is, regardless. Bad thing is, GPP was only shutdown in name only, not in the anti competitive practice it brings.

[H]F Junkie

The answer is A, and I don't know why you cut my comment short if you were just going to pose the exact same scenario to me that I stated in that same comment. Considering that Nvidia released G-Sync first and developed a proprietary technology it doesn't surprise me that they are attempting to defend that space through branding, as that seems like a logical business move. If both technologies are still present and the technical specs detail what the monitor is capable of then it's really just a branding deal between the manufacturers and Nvidia; I don't see why the manufacturers shouldn't be allowed to decide the branding on their own products.

Except that what is being done is shady as heck. Who cares if G Sync was released first or not, they were not on the monitors in question and now, all of a sudden, years later, they are and Freesync is no longer mentioned? (At least on the product's placement where it is sold.) There is zero justification for this behavior and there never has been. I guess green buys a lot of carpet bombing.......

[H]ard|Gawd

Except that what is being done is shady as heck. Who cares if G Sync was released first or not, they were not on the monitors in question and now, all of a sudden, years later, they are and Freesync is no longer mentioned? (At least on the product's placement where it is sold.) There is zero justification for this behavior and there never has been. I guess green buys a lot of carpet bombing.......

What I don't understand is why you feel the manufacturers need to justify this behavior to you or anyone else. They'd probably just say "Nvidia purchased branding rights on our monitors" and at that point whether or not the previous iterations of the product included Freesync branding would no longer be relevant.

People without Nvidia cards won't be looking for G-Sync compatible monitors, but people with Nvidia cards might totally disregard a product based on whether it can support G-Sync or not. With Nvidia leading the GPU market for the last 10+ years it wouldn't be a complete surprise if they were able to woo some manufacturers with $$$ and their market share.

Fully [H]

Except those monitors where very specifically and clearly Freesync monitors, straight up! If they want to pay for such exclusivity, have them build new monitors. As such, it is clearly anti competitive and the only question now, is it cosmetic or did they also change and remove Freesync from those monitors completely?

Whatever is going on, if anything, really needs someone with some actual credibility behind the reporting. If Nvidia is convincing (via $$$ or other means) manufacturers to only remove Freesync branding from some of their monitors, its something I'd like to hear from a source I'd be willing to believe wouldn't be trying to make a mountain out of a mole-hill. The claims themselves would hold a lot more water, at least to me, if all mentions of Freesync were scrubbed from the monitors and not just the branding changed in a couple areas. Since we're only talking manufacturer product pages and etail listings I think there are a couple more key questions that need to be asked here:

1. What do the monitor boxes look like? Did the manufacturer slap a "G-Sync Compatible" logo over a spot where it used to list Freesync? Did they add a G-Sync logo next to the Freesync one? Or are neither of the logos present where there used to be a Freesync one?

2. In the OSD for these specific monitors how is adaptive sync labeled on newer stock vs previous stock? Some (but not all) monitors label the Adaptive Sync toggle as "Freesync" in the OSD. Has this changed?

If the only notable change is that a handful of monitors are now promoting that they support the a-sync implementation of the vastly more popular brand I don't really think its damning evidence one way or the other. This is one of those cases where both conclusions (Nvidia is forcing them vs they're doing it because Nvidia is a bigger GPU brand) are entirely viable.

Well your context doesnt really relate to the point i was trying to make. Let me be clearer then in my position, that i am not claiming i agree with or fully trust the OP's position / source and that more evidence is good. I do however believe their are plenty of good non emotional reasons to not trust nvidia at this point and GPP is just a recent example.

2[H]4U

[H]ard|Gawd

Joined

Sep 2, 2000

Messages

1,772

The main issue here, IMO, is that the "G-Sync Compatible" could potentially be seen as deceptive. G-Sync from the beginning was always an nvidia-only proprietary standard. If a customer doesn't know that "G-Sync Compatible" is a completely different concept than "G-Sync" then they may be deceived into believing that the monitor only supports nvidia products. Knowing their history, that wouldn't come as a surprise at all. And relying on outright deception to sell your products and lower the sales of your competitors is absolutely anti-competitive.

[H]F Junkie

The answer is A, and I don't know why you cut my comment short if you were just going to pose the exact same scenario to me that I stated in that same comment. Considering that Nvidia released G-Sync first and developed a proprietary technology it doesn't surprise me that they are attempting to defend that space through branding, as that seems like a logical business move. If both technologies are still present and the technical specs detail what the monitor is capable of then it's really just a branding deal between the manufacturers and Nvidia; I don't see why the manufacturers shouldn't be allowed to decide the branding on their own products.

Because the question really wasn't aimed at you, but at those who are pretending there is nothing here, and it's definitely not nvidia.

Oh they are fully allowed to take bribes, as long as they are not a non-profit. My problem is that some people wants to pretend that nvidia is in no way responsible for some manufacturers removing freesync branding from their products.

But that's how that program worked. nVidia would pay the advertising bill. More profit for the manufacturer and/or lower prices for us (probably just more profit for them. or more ads able to be paid for).

The stink was nVidia didn't want any brands they were supporting with advertising dollars to sell competing brands' products. Or spin it (the way it generally was) and say nVidia is forcing them to not sell AMD!! Even back then if the program had continued, all the manufacturers would have had to do was start separate brands for AMD gpu's, and not use nVidia funds for advertising those products.

So it is logical to assume that this is the same idea, named GPP or not.

And all of this is absent any real reporting. (AdoredTV is not real reporting)

Following the Spin/GPP logic, nVidia would be "forcing" vendors, if they want to continue making G-Sync/G-Sync ultimate displays (if you want to keep buying our G-sync modules), then "you have to stop making anything Freesync".

Pick another: BenQ XL2740. Comes up with three versions. 144Hz Freesync, 240Hz G-Sync
Pick another: Dell S2419HGF. Comes up on Amazon as Freesync (Watch out for the "close" search results like P2419H and S2419H, not the same item, neither of which has any adaptive sync tech)
Pick another: Gigabyte AD27QD. Comes up as Aorus Freesync? lol.

Except it's been announced since January 2019 that nVidia cards can support Free-sync / Adaptive sync displays. So the possibility of an uninformed consumer is an anti-competitive behavior?

You are really reaching and that doesn't hold up, especially when the majority of the displays I've searched are listed as Freesync, or both Freesync and G-sync. Your uneducated consumer finds a Freesync display then gets confused when G-sync compatible is also listed?

[H]ard|Gawd

The main issue here, IMO, is that the "G-Sync Compatible" could potentially be seen as deceptive. G-Sync from the beginning was always an nvidia-only proprietary standard. If a customer doesn't know that "G-Sync Compatible" is a completely different concept than "G-Sync" then they may be deceived into believing that the monitor only supports nvidia products. Knowing their history, that wouldn't come as a surprise at all. And relying on outright deception to sell your products and lower the sales of your competitors is absolutely anti-competitive.

But, as M76 said earlier in the thread, couldn't this also result in fewer monitors being sold? Sure, you could look at the branding and say "this is G-Sync compatible so I'd better buy an Nvidia card" but I think a much more common scenario might be "this is G-Sync compatible, but I have an AMD card so I'd better buy a different monitor."

[H]ard|Gawd

Except it's been announced since January 2019 that nVidia cards can support Free-sync / Adaptive sync displays. So the possibility of an uninformed consumer is an anti-competitive behavior?

You are really reaching and that doesn't hold up, especially when the majority of the displays I've searched are listed as Freesync, or both Freesync and G-sync. Your uneducated consumer finds a Freesync display then gets confused when G-sync compatible is also listed?

Yes, it has been announced that they support "FreeSync". But how is a consumer supposed to know that "G-Sync Compatible" is synonymous with "FreeSync", and not that it is "G-Sync" which is nvidia-only?

But, as M76 said earlier in the thread, couldn't this also result in fewer monitors being sold? Sure, you could look at the branding and say "this is G-Sync compatible so I'd better buy an Nvidia card" but I think a much more common scenario might be "this is G-Sync compatible, but I have an AMD card so I'd better buy a different monitor."

Sure it might result in less monitors sold, but companies like Asus that make both monitors and cards might be pressured by nvidia to do this. The fact that Asus brought AMD cards back to their ROG line immediately after GPP was cancelled is clear evidence of this kind of coercion occurring in the past.